Covenant?

What's with circumcision in the bible? I can't remember because I don't read the bible regularly, only when I want to prove a point, but I think it's in Judges where god goes to Abraham and tells him and his sons to get circumcized. Can anyone explain why mutilating yourself gets you closer to god? I mean we pitch a fit when women get circumcized why is it socially acceptable to do the same thing to men?

Views: 6

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Howell on July 15, 2008 at 9:23pm
HAHA "which is just gross"...that's great
Permalink Reply by Richard Knight on July 16, 2008 at 2:07am
The "benefits" of cicumcision are over-rated and the evidence is not anywhere near as strong as they make it out to be.

See http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm#COST-BENEFIT%20...

"Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!"
Bladder problems, perhaps, but probably not. You just pull the foreskin back a little bit. Prostate problems? Does this guy even know how MD's get to the prostate?

"Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection."
In the US, about 1 in 100,000. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;103/3/...) What is two orders of magnitudes between friends?

"Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?"
I only found http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/346/15/1105.pdf, but I dispute the 20% reduction. The woman's level of education, and the men's use of condoms and/or engaging in risky behavior had far more impact on cervical cancer than circumcision. Besides, we've got an HPV vaccine, now.

"Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)"
It might make sense if you were living in high-risk sub-Saharan Africa. Really, it doesn't help a single person very much, it just slows the spread in a population.

"As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain."
Is this a religious site? Sheesh. For syphilis and chancroid, yes, but they are easy to treat and the risk is still low. For comparison, circumcision almost doubles your risk for genital warts.

"Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence."
Lots of men, and their partners, prefer uncircumcised. It can still be odour free and feel clean if you wash it. There is evidence that men who get a circumcision for a valid medical reason experience better sex. There is also evidence that men who had a circumcision as an infant for a non-medical reason have less sensation from sex.

"Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision."
6%.versus 3%. It can also be prevented by proper washing.

"Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely."
"The reliability of many studies examining circumcision status and UTI in infant males is weakened by lack of controls for potential confounders such as prematurity, extent of breastfeeding, and the method of urine collection used to identify bacteriuria.

Despite the increased relative risk in uncircumcised infants, the absolute incidence of UTI is small in this population (0.4%-1%).18 Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI." (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html)

It is a religious foundation! circinfo.com is owned by the gilgal society! http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3803
Permalink Reply by Tarquin St John Sh'gn'sty on July 24, 2009 at 4:53am
"Does this guy even know how MD's get to the prostate? "

An 'older man' I have have the same condition as Dame Edna's late husband Norm: a rumbling prostate. It needs to be checked manually. When it flares up,it's treated with a broad spectrum placebo.

My mother claims that when I was a few days old, the nurse ANNOUNCED "we're going to circumcise baby today", and they bloody well did. I don't remember really,but from what I've gathered, I was not happy. To be fair,I've always liked the streamlined look of my willy,which I guess is just as well.

I believe there was possibly some justification for circumcising male children of a bunch of nomadic bronze age goat herders who didn't bathe.I'm assuming they wanted to keep the numbers of male offspring low, as more than few would have died from sepsis. In a post industrial urban society ,circumcision is much harder to justify. I'm appalled that modern city dwelling Jews are still permitted to mutilate their little boys on religious grounds.
Permalink Reply by Skylar on July 15, 2008 at 7:39pm
If I remember correctly, in the Kabbalah it was something of a physical avenue of becoming closer to the guy in the sky.
Permalink Reply by James Howell on July 15, 2008 at 9:28pm
As many folk myths seem to have evolved long ago - in order to explain a cultural standard...even one regarding health and hygiene (as which seems likely to be the cause) - this is quite possibly another example. I suppose it wouldn't be crazy to assume that if our standards existed back then, they would have created a story involving a god explaining why women were expected to shave their legs.
Permalink Reply by Suzanne on July 16, 2008 at 1:27pm
I read somewhere that the practice circumcision is all that remains of the ancient pagan custom of child sacrifice. It appears that god is now satisfied with a foreskin and a few droplets of blood instead of a whole child. What a nice god!
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey on July 16, 2008 at 6:10pm
In that case I should be happy I was circumcised and not castrated.
Permalink Reply by Chiropteran on October 20, 2008 at 11:08am
I also believe male circumcision is a pagan ritual (as Suzanne pointed out) brought into the 21st century that has little relevance to men's health over-all. Female genital mutilation (FGM) however, is in no way comparable!
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on October 20, 2008 at 2:27pm
I think a lot of it had to do with identifying you as a Jew. Once you're were clipped, you were Jewish forever. Of course, the barbarity spread to becoming standard practice - often done automatically without even asking the parents.

I'm Mr. Intacto myself. I find American women are especially fascinated - none I've met have ever played with an unmutilated dick and find it fascinating. Hours of fun, it has its advantages.
Permalink Reply by Cat on November 9, 2008 at 12:44pm
Because they lacked showers 2000 years ago?
Permalink Reply by Jemand on July 24, 2009 at 1:10pm
see... I don't quite get this... homo erectus didn't have showers either and somehow I don't imagine them chopping pits off the penis...
Permalink Reply by Buffy on November 9, 2008 at 2:02pm
From what I gather it was a very obvious symbol that they were "of God" (the Israelite god). If you wanted to prove you were not one of those nasty Philistines or other such characters all you need do is show your cut manhood. It was something only true believers would do, and an act nobody rational would do in an attempt to deceive others.

To me it's yet another way religion can be outrageous, even barbaric. Any system or "god" that demands you mutilate yourself and/or your children to prove their adherence is beyond reproach.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service